Ironically they violate the "Privacy Act" which is the very same law they use to conceal information about the whereabouts or personal information of child abductors from LBP's trying to find their children or litigate a Hague case.

It appears that the behavior of the BCA has become as disgraceful as the OCI. Please read the following communication which I received today from Ms. Saddi, the new case manager at the BCA. Note that I have heard nothing from the OCI indicating that there was even a decision made in my case, let alone this decision by the BCA, which I understand to be against Brazilian law. My understanding is that when the AGU is the plaintiff, they must file an appeal.---------------

Dear Mr. Weinstein,

As I have previously informed you, from now on, your communication should be to and from the U.S. BCA, Mrs. Daisy Cardiel. But, as our last direct communication, I would like you to be aware of how we are working, as you can see on the e-mail bellow.

Best Regards,

---------------Dear Daisy,

As we have informed you previously, March 28th e-mail, we would like to reinforce the U.S BCA that the panel voted against our appeal; therefore, the children should remain in Brazil.

As so, we would like to strongly suggest you to get in contact with Mr. Weinstein, and inform him that he has the right to appeal to this decision, on private basis, by contracting a private attorney of his choice, as soon as possible.

After much effort, I was able to verify through the AGU that the email sent by the BCA was, in fact, incorrect. I was told that the ruling had NOT been published yet, even though it was made nearly 3 weeks ago. I was also told that the judge was on a 10-day leave of absence and that it would be at least that long before the AGU would even know why the panel made its ruling.

Therefore, the email from the BCA indicating that the Brazilian government would not file an appeal was premature and that such a statement could only be made AFTER analyzing the ruling, which has yet to even be published.

I guess the question now is why the OCI did not forward whatever the BCA had told them to tell me on March 28, 2011. Sadly, this is not the first time that the OCI has failed to forward information from the BCA.

According to an email I just received from the OCI, the courts have STILL NOT PUBLISHED the ruling from the beginning of March. Until they do, the AGU cannot determine whether an appeal is feasible or not. I am aware that they petitioned the courts over a month ago to issue the ruling. I have not been told the reason for the delay, though all indications are that it is not normal and something is fishy.

Apparently, the ruling was published last week. I learned this from my sister-in-law in Brazil though have not seen a copy of it. I inquired with the BCA about the appeal that I presume to be coming and will update here if I get a response.

It's official. My case is over and my children will stay in Brazil. I'm trying to interpret the ruling, but so far, I see that they essentially confirmed the lies that my wife's attorney presented to court. For example, he claimed that I:

1. Planned on moving to Brazil2. Threatened criminal action in the United States3. Waited more than a year to file my claim4. Blah, blah, blah

It's official. My case is over and my children will stay in Brazil. I'm trying to interpret the ruling, but so far, I see that they essentially confirmed the lies that my wife's attorney presented to court. For example, he claimed that I:

1. Planned on moving to Brazil2. Threatened criminal action in the United States3. Waited more than a year to file my claim4. Blah, blah, blah

Very sorry Tim

At least now you have an answer though and I expect that is worth quite a bit by itself, regardless of the fact that it is a negative one. It's been my experience that not knowing when you will have an answer or what it will be is a serious source of stress in and of itself. It's impossible to plan your life when such an important question is left unresolved.

Normally such blatantly wrong interpretations of the facts of the case are resolved over the course of appeals. It's one thing when a lower court gets the basic facts wrong or takes the unilateral manifestations of one of the parties as if it were, in and of itself, some sort of evidence (as bad as that is) but such mistakes should be resolved during the appeals process.

Does this result change your opinion of the representation provided by the AGU? Admittedly, absent some serious incompetence in the Brazilian high courts, it seems to me that the least the AGU could have done was gotten the courts to get the basic facts right (like whether or not you waited a year to file a claim,) if not the interpretation of the law.

At least now you have an answer though and I expect that is worth quite a bit by itself, regardless of the fact that it is a negative one. It's been my experience that not knowing when you will have an answer or what it will be is a serious source of stress in and of itself. It's impossible to plan your life when such an important question is left unresolved.

Normally such blatantly wrong interpretations of the facts of the case are resolved over the course of appeals. It's one thing when a lower court gets the basic facts wrong or takes the unilateral manifestations of one of the parties as if it were, in and of itself, some sort of evidence (as bad as that is) but such mistakes should be resolved during the appeals process.

Does this result change your opinion of the representation provided by the AGU? Admittedly, absent some serious incompetence in the Brazilian high courts, it seems to me that the least the AGU could have done was gotten the courts to get the basic facts right (like whether or not you waited a year to file a claim,) if not the interpretation of the law.

I think the problem is that the AGU represents the Brazilian government and not the left-behind parent. Consequently, the communication between them and me was terrible. On many occasions, I presented documents to the OCI and BCA, but have no evidence that they ever found their way to the AGU. The appeal that was filed attempted to address many of the "facts" from the first level, but it seems that the judges rejected the AGU's argument. For example, the appeal court confirmed that simply visiting a school once was "strong evidence" of my intentions to move to Brazil. On another example, they completely ignored that I had filed my petition in October, 2006 and stated the illegal retention occurred in August, 2006 (when they did not return) by stating that more than one year had elapsed because my children first entered Brazil in June, 2006 (with my permission) and the AGU didn't file the case until July, 2007. There were other "facts" that the AGU did not address in the appeal, but there were so many reasons for denying the return, even had I successfully attacked 2 or 3, the judges would have found other reasons not to return my children.

I am so sorry about this biased and horribly unfair decision. I hope that Congressman Smith and his committee use this as further evidence for holding accountable, the OCI and their gross incompetence.